User:DracaenaGuianensis/Sandbox 1

California High-Speed Rail
San Joaquin River Viaduct under construction in 2019.
The same viaduct completed in April 2021. Adjacent are the SR 99 freeway and, between them, a single-track railroad line which is used for freight.
Übersicht
Owner	California High-Speed Rail Authority an agency of the State of California
Area served	Early Operating Segment/EOS (aka Interim Initial Operating Segment, or Interim IOS) now being developed in San Joaquin Valley (Merced to Bakersfield); Planned Phase 1 extensions:    north to San Francisco Bay Area    south to Greater Los Angeles; Future extensions for Phase 2:    north to Sacramento, California    south to San Diego, California
Locale	California, United States
Transit type	High-speed rail
Number of stations	5 proposed in Interim IOS; up to 24 authorized in completed system
Chief executive	Brian P. Kelly
Website	www.hsr.ca.gov www.buildhsr.com
Operation
Operation will start	2030-2033 (Merced to Bakersfield segment)
Operator(s)	DB E.C.O. North America Inc.
Technical
System length	171 mi (275 km) in Interim IOS 494 mi (795 km) in Phase 1 776 mi (1,249 km) completed system
No. of tracks	2 (plus 2 loading tracks in stations)
Track gauge	4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge
Electrification	25 kV 60 Hz AC overhead line
Top speed	220 mph (350 km/h) maximum; 110 mph (180 km/h) San Francisco–Gilroy & Burbank–Anaheim
System map Phase 2 planned Sacramento Stockton Modesto Phase 2 Phase 1 The Portal San Francisco Salesforce Transit Center The Portal San Francisco 4th & King TBD Brisbane Light Maintenance Facility Millbrae-SFO TBD San Jose TBD Gilroy TBD Pacheco Pass Tunnels Pacheco Pass Tunnels Merced IOS/2033 Chowchilla Wye Madera IOS/2033 Fresno River Viaduct San Joaquin River Viaduct Fresno IOS/2033 Kings River Viaduct Kings–Tulare IOS/2033 Kern River Crossing Bakersfield IOS/2033 Tehachapi Pass High Desert Corridor to Victor Valley (proposed) Palmdale TBD Soledad Canyon Soledad Canyon Burbank Airport TBD Los Angeles TBD Norwalk option Fullerton option Anaheim TBD Phase 2 planned Phase 1 Phase 2 El Monte Transit Center option West Covina option Pomona option Ontario San Bernardino County option San Bernardino option Corona option March ARB option Murrieta option Escondido San Diego IOS = Initial Operating Segment

• SEPIA indicates unreviewed, unedited original content
• GRAY indicates superseded content

Article overhaul status Introduction: draft ready for first review Background: replaces the old "History" section with a more focused discussion of the early history and basic legal underpinnings of the project. draft ready for first review Plans, construction and project status: draft ready for first review Rolling stock: draft ready for first review Stations and service patterns: new section to replace current sections Route, stations, speed, & times, parts of HSR passenger line operations and adding crucial information on stations that is currently missing TODOs: add mile distances, add service patterns

Note: There is currently no unified term for the Central Valley segment Merced to Bakersfield in this draft. In the past, different terms were used, such as "Interim initial operating segment", "Early operating segment", "initial operating segment". A rough look over recent documents, such as the 2024 Business Plan, suggests that the official term in usage now is "initial operating segment" (IOS) for Merced to Bakersfield. Given that the connection to San Jose is not funded at all and all operative focus is on the Central Valley, I propose going along with it and using the term "initial operating segment (IOS)" as such throughout the article. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - SJ to Bakersfield hasn't been seriously the IOS for a good while. I'll keep on the lookout for mentions of the IOS. Shannon [ Talk ] 03:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

California High-Speed Rail (also known as CAHSR or CHSR) is a publicly funded high-speed rail system being developed in the U.S. state of California by the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The full system is envisioned to eventually encompass 776 miles (1,249 km) and is split into two parts: Phase 1 would connect from downtown San Francisco via the Central Valley south to Los Angeles and Anaheim, for a total of 494 miles (795 km). Phase 2 would extend the system north to Sacramento and south to San Diego. Currently, full active construction is limited to a 171-mile (275 km) section in the Central Valley called the "Interim Initial Operating Section", which is projected to commence revenue service between 2030-2033 as a self-contained high-speed rail system. With a top speed of 220 mph (350 km/h), CAHSR trains running along this section would be the fastest in the Americas.

The project was authorized by a 2008 statewide ballot. It is intended to reduce travel times in the state, particularly between the major urban areas of the north (the San Francisco Bay Area) and the south (Greater Los Angeles). Further goals were reductions in pollution and carbon emissions, alleviation of highway and air traffic congestion, and boosting the state's economy, particularly in the Central Valley region. Civil construction started in the Central Valley in 2015 and is ongoing.

The project has experienced significant delays and cost overruns caused by project management issues, legal challenges, and lack of complete funding, and its route choice has been criticized. The High-Speed Rail Authority has not been allocated state or federal funding to complete segments beyond the IOS.

California High-Speed Rail (also known as CAHSR or CHSR) is a publicly funded high-speed rail system being developed in the U.S. state of California by the California High-Speed Rail Authority. It was authorized by a statewide ballot proposal called Proposition 1A. It is intended to reduce travel times in the state, particularly between the major urban areas of the north (the San Francisco Bay Area) and the south (Greater Los Angeles). The system is also intended to reduce pollution and carbon emissions, ease highway and air traffic congestion, and boost the state's economy, particularly in the Central Valley region. Paragraph superseded

A 171-mile (275 km) initial operating segment (IOS) from Merced to Bakersfield is planned to open in the early 2030s. With a top speed of 220 mph (350 km/h), CAHSR trains running in the IOS would be the fastest in the Americas. However, the Authority has not identified sufficient funding to complete the rest of Phase 1, which would stretch a total of about 500 miles (800 km) from downtown San Francisco south to Anaheim. Phase 2, which was also authorized, would extend the system north to Sacramento and south to San Diego, for a total of 800 miles (1,300 km). Paragraph superseded

In 2023, Caltrans, the California state transportation agency, released a draft statewide rail modernization plan which lays out the justification and vision for CAHSR. This is the first comprehensive rail plan in the US, integrating HSR with other passenger rail services. It also includes the goal of statewide scheduling and ticketing across all passenger rail systems to improve passenger travel. Move to Service later or delete (not substantive, mostly corporate speech)

The HSR system will also use "blending", sharing the infrastructure of local rail systems in the Bay Area and Los Angeles areas, for reduced costs and improved efficiency. Currently, the electrification of Caltrain in the Bay Area is proceeding, and is due to be completed in late 2024 (although connection with CAHSR will not be done for years yet). Delete (unnecessary detail here)

Various aspects of the project have drawn criticism, including its route, management inexperience and turnover, delays in land acquisition and construction, and costs greatly larger than initial projections. Construction began in the Central Valley in 2015, and currently 171 miles (275 km) of the route are at various stages of completion. As of late 2023 an average of 1,500 workers were employed on CAHSR construction sites each day, making it the largest construction project in the US. Paragraph superseded

The CAHSR Economic Impact Factsheet for 2023 shows that 6,980 job years were created last fiscal year in the Central Valley, which pumped $0.490 billion in direct labor income into the economy, which in turn multiplied into $1.310 billion in economic activity. For the project state-wide cumulatively (July 2006 – June 2023), the statewide totals are 83,960 job-years of employment, $7.010 billion in direct labor income, and $18.410 billion in economic output. Also, "During FY2022-23, 66% of project expenditure occurred in disadvantaged communities in California." And, "To date, the Authority has paid more than $1.47 billion to certified Small Businesses, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises and Disabled Veteran Business Enterprises in California." Thus, the project is creating substantial economic benefits to areas and groups which particularly will benefit from it. Move to Economic and environmental impacts later

Although there are many remaining tasks identified in the project, as of January 2024 the projected funding through 2030 will only provide:

• completion of the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment in the Central Valley,
• the electrification and modernization of Caltrain in the Bay Area,
• some other passenger rail improvements elsewhere in the state,
• environmental clearance for the entire Phase 1 system, and
• some planning and preparatory steps in the next priority segments.

Move to Plans and construction later

Background

I have significantly shortened this section to just cover the "background" behind the establishment of the system and how it ties into the state's larger transportation plans. This section also discusses the major funding sources for the project. Further discussion of budgetary changes, cost estimates and financial issues shall fall under a separate section on budget and finances. Discussion of planning/construction falls under the next section. Discussion of criticism and controversy also falls under its own section. Shannon [ Talk ] 17:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This version is so much better and manages to be shorter, while even increasing information content. I am excited to see the overhauled Plans, construction and project status. Just to flag one minor thing: Beyond ARRA in 2010 and FSP-National in 2023, the Authority received another significant federal appropriation: $929 million from FY10. Technically separate from ARRA, but close together in time. Not sure whether/how to put in in nicely. resolved 

Main article: History of California High-Speed Rail

A statewide high-speed rail program was first proposed in 1979 by Governor Jerry Brown. In 1982 Brown signed a bill authorizing $1.25 billion in bonds for a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Diego. This proposal ultimately failed due to concerns over its economic viability and environmental impact, and Caltrans' objection to the handling of the project by a private company. It was not until 1993 when the state once again began studying high-speed rail with the creation of the Intercity High-Speed Rail Commission. In 1996, the California Legislature and Governor Pete Wilson passed the High-Speed Rail Act, which formed the California High-Speed Rail Authority (the "Authority") to plan, design, construct and operate a statewide high-speed rail system.

In 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger championed a ballot measure, Proposition 1A, which issued $9 billion in bonds to begin the planning and construction of high-speed rail and a further $950 million to upgrade commuter rail systems in Northern and Southern California that would connect with the high-speed rail system. Proposition 1A, which passed with about 53 percent of the vote, set several requirements for the high-speed rail system, including that the top speed must be at least 200 miles per hour (320 km/h), and that the nonstop travel time from the Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco to Los Angeles Union Station should be no more than 2 hours and 40 minutes.

Proposition 1A specified several corridors for high-speed rail investment. It outlined four corridors in Northern California (Sacramento–Stockton–Fresno; San Francisco–San Jose–Fresno via the Pacheco Pass; Oakland–San Jose; and Merced/Stockton–Oakland/San Francisco via the Altamont Pass). The Northern California sections were to be connected to Southern California on a route serving Fresno, Bakersfield, and Palmdale before reaching Los Angeles. In Southern California, two corridors were specified – Los Angeles–Riverside–San Diego, and Los Angeles–Anaheim–Irvine. The only specific requirement set by Proposition 1A was to complete a link between San Francisco and Los Angeles, and that any high-speed rail routes constructed should follow these corridors. It did not require that all the corridors must be built, or indicate the order in which they should be constructed.

In 2010, Congress approved two federal grants through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, totaling about $3.5 billion. In June 2014, state legislators and Governor Jerry Brown agreed to apportion 25 percent of the state's annual cap and trade funds to high-speed rail. This represents the only ongoing source of funding for the project, and is set to expire in 2030. The Authority is seeking to extend this agreement to 2050. The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided an additional $3.1 billion in federal funds for the project, awarded in December 2023.

In 2018, Caltrans issued the California State Rail Plan, which aims to upgrade and modernize the state's intercity passenger and freight rail systems through 2050. Provisions of the plan include increasing the capacity of existing railways, establishing new services, improving service frequencies and train speeds, and integrating ticketing between transit agencies. The state rail plan outlines the integration of high-speed rail into the statewide system, as its primary north-south passenger link. Although the California High-Speed Rail Authority has not indicated completion dates for the full system, the 2023 version of the state rail plan targeted the completion of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 by 2050.

Plans, construction and project status

I have revised this whole section. The focus is on dates, schedule and construction progress. I'm proposing keeping all budget and finance numbers out of this section, as these figures change on a frequent basis, and it can easily spiral out of control and create a mess (not unlike the finances of the actual project...) Anything related to money I suggest discussing in the #Budget and finances section, where it can be given the attention it needs. Shannon [ Talk ] 03:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Main articles: Construction of California High-Speed Rail and Route of California High-Speed Rail

Phase 1

High-speed rail project status as of February 2024

Phase 1 of the planned route, about 494 miles (795 km) long, runs from the Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco to the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center in Anaheim, with intermediate stops planned for Millbrae, San Jose, Gilroy, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings/Tulare (Hanford), Bakersfield, Palmdale, Burbank and Los Angeles. An additional station between Los Angeles and Anaheim, at Norwalk or Fullerton, is being considered. The existing 4th and King Caltrain station in San Francisco is expected to be the northern terminus of Phase 1 until the future completion of the Downtown Rail Extension.

From San Francisco, the planned route runs south to Gilroy before crossing the Diablo Range eastward over Pacheco Pass into the San Joaquin Valley. The route branches north to Merced via a flying wye which is intended to serve as the connection for a future Phase 2 extension to Sacramento. As part of Phase 1, Merced is planned to serve as a transfer point to Amtrak San Joaquins and Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) trains continuing towards Stockton, Sacramento and other destinations. South of there, Madera through Bakersfield stations are located along the main line in the San Joaquin Valley. From Bakersfield, the high-speed rail route crosses the Tehachapi Mountains via Tehachapi Pass to Palmdale in the Mojave Desert. It then tunnels under the San Gabriel Mountains to reach Los Angeles and Anaheim.

In the urbanized areas from San Francisco to Gilroy and from Burbank to Anaheim, the Phase 1 route follows existing railroad right-of-ways. In 2012, the Authority adopted a "blended" approach to construction, which would involve high-speed trains sharing track with Amtrak and local commuter trains (Caltrain in the Bay Area and Metrolink in Southern California) in these sections. This approach was adopted to reduce costs and mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding communities, but also limits train speed in these sections to a maximum of 110 miles per hour (180 km/h). Between Gilroy and Burbank, the planned route will run on dedicated high-speed tracks.

Initial Operating Segment (IOS)

Due to funding constraints, the Authority is constructing Phase 1 in sections. An "Initial Operating Segment" (IOS) is intended to begin carrying passengers along a limited portion of the route before the full Phase 1 is completed. In 2012, the IOS was planned to run from Merced to Burbank (just north of Los Angeles), a distance of about 300 miles (480 km). The connection north to the Bay Area would depend on a transfer to Amtrak San Joaquins trains at Merced. This would close a major gap in California intercity rail services, as the San Joaquins terminates at Bakersfield and does not continue on to Los Angeles. In 2016, due to changes in funding and financing plans, the Authority changed the IOS to a northern segment between San Jose and Bakersfield, the "Silicon Valley to Central Valley line".

As of 2018, the Authority had identified sufficient funding to complete the 171-mile (275 km) section from Merced to Bakersfield, while the link to San Jose remained unfunded. As of 2023, the IOS had been cut back to Merced–Bakersfield, where the Authority plans to run an interim passenger service prior to opening the Bay Area segment. Once this service begins operation, high-speed trains would fully replace Amtrak San Joaquins service south of Merced. San Joaquins passengers continuing to Southern California currently transfer to Amtrak Thruway buses at Bakersfield. This bus connection will remain necessary until Phase 1 of high-speed rail reaches Los Angeles.

Construction on the Fresno River Viaduct, part of Phase 1, in 2016

Construction on Phase 1 began with a groundbreaking in Fresno on January 6, 2015. The first 119 miles (192 km), stretching from Madera south to Shafter (about 20 miles (32 km) northwest of Bakersfield), are being constructed under four design-build contracts (titled "construction packages"). These include constructing the railroad grade, viaducts, road overpasses and underpasses, and other structures along the route, but not the track itself. In August 2022, the Authority approved design contracts for the remaining segments from Madera to Merced and Shafter to Bakersfield, with construction contracts expected in 2025-2026.

In October 2022, the Authority approved a design contract for the Merced, Fresno, Kings/Tulare and Bakersfield stations. Planning for the Madera station is occurring under a separate agreement with the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority. The construction contract for track and electrical power systems on the IOS is expected in 2024-2025. As of February 2024, construction packages 1–3 were more than 70 percent complete and construction package 4 was at 98 percent. The full Merced–Bakersfield line was expected to be complete in 2029, with passenger service starting around 2030–2033.

Blended corridor investments

Concurrently with Central Valley construction, the Authority has worked with other California transportation agencies and rail operators to prepare the northern and southern blended segments for high-speed rail operations. In the Bay Area, the electrification of Caltrain will enable electric high-speed trains to run on the existing Caltrain commuter rail corridor from San Francisco to San Jose. Work began in 2017 and is expected to be completed in September 2024. The Downtown Rail Extension in San Francisco, being developed in conjunction with the Transbay Joint Powers Authority and other agencies, is planned to enter the engineering phase in 2024.

The corridor from San Jose to Gilroy will also require electrification; however, as of February 2024, the Authority was still in negotiations with Union Pacific Railroad over proposed alterations to the tracks. Several grade separations and passing tracks have been completed or are planned along the route from San Francisco to Gilroy, in order to improve track capacity, speed and safety for combined Caltrain/high-speed rail operations. However, not all at-grade crossings are planned to be removed; instead, other safety improvements such as quad gates are being considered.

In Southern California, the Link US project plans to reconfigure Los Angeles Union Station from a terminal to a run-through station, increasing its capacity and enabling high-speed service to run directly through to Anaheim rather than being forced to reverse out of the station. The Metrolink tracks from Burbank to Anaheim will also require electrification. Between Los Angeles and Fullerton, the rail corridor is heavily used by both passenger and BNSF freight trains. As of November 2023, the Authority proposed to build a fourth track on the existing three-track corridor, allowing two tracks to be used for passenger trains (including high-speed rail) and two for freight, in addition to grade separations and crossing safety improvements. Freight trains may be allowed to use the passenger tracks during off-peak hours.

The Authority has also funded other projects such as the installation of positive train control systems along the shared commuter rail lines, and upgrades to existing stations and railyards to accommodate both future high-speed rail and other passenger rail services.

Remainder of Phase 1

Part of Phase 1 will travel through the Tehachapi Pass, which is currently traversed by the Union Pacific Railroad (Tehachapi Loop shown here)

Construction of the remaining Phase 1 route is still on hold due to budget constraints. As of early 2024, the environmental impact statements for 422 miles (679 km) of the 494-mile (795 km) route had been certified, which clears those segments for final engineering design and construction. The remaining segments to be certified were the Palmdale–Burbank and Los Angeles–Anaheim sections.

The Merced to San Jose section would cross the Pacheco Pass roughly along the route of SR 152. It would include several tunnels, the longest of which would be 13.5 miles (21.7 km), making it the longest intercity rail tunnel in the US. Engineering challenges along this section include "poor-quality rock formations, faults and shear zones, and potentially high groundwater inflows that can affect tunnel stability." The Authority expects to start design work on this section in 2024, and begin pre-construction work such as land acquistion in about 2026-2028, funds permitting.

The Bakersfield–Palmdale section of the line will cross Tehachapi Pass, roughly parallelling the Union Pacific Railroad's Mojave Subdivision. Due to its heavy freight traffic and sharp curves (including the famous Tehachapi Loop), there is no current passenger service through the pass. While the proposed high-speed rail alignment will not include any long tunnels comparable to those in Pacheco Pass, it has nine shorter tunnels and several viaducts more than 200 feet (61 m) high. The maximum grade through the pass would be 2.8 percent, making it the steepest portion of the Phase 1 route.

From Palmdale to Burbank the proposed route crosses the San Gabriel Mountains on an alignment roughly along State Route 14. It would require the most tunneling of any of the mountain crossings, with four separate tunnels totaling 28 miles (45 km) in length. One of the major challenges along this section is the crossing of multiple fault lines including the San Andreas Fault, where a large earthquake could significantly deform the tracks. To compensate for this, the rail beds and tunnel diameters will be constructed wider at fault crossings to allow for any needed track realignment in the future. The tracks will cross the San Andreas Fault itself above ground.

Operations infrastructure

The high-speed rail system is being planned to run entirely on renewable energy. Due to the large energy demand of high-speed trains, the system is being planned to generate much of its own power. Solar arrays and battery backup systems are to be installed at traction power substations along the route; however, they will still be tied into the California power grid, allowing them to share energy as needed. The Authority plans to install solar panels capable of producing 44 megawatts, and batteries to store 124 megawatt hours. The on-site generation of solar power is estimated to cut future electricity costs by 75 percent compared to purchasing it from the state grid, and will keep the system operational if the grid suffers a blackout.

A heavy maintenance facility, serving as the location for major train inspections and repairs, is planned to be built in the San Joaquin Valley. It will also serve to receive and test high-speed trainsets along the IOS track currently being constructed. Also planned along the Phase 1 route are three light maintenance facilities for routine train inspections and cleaning, with locations in the Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley and greater Los Angeles, as well as four maintenance of way facilities spaced throughout the route. The exact siting for these facilities has yet to be determined. As of 2019, both Fresno and Kern Counties have expressed interest in hosting the heavy maintenance facility.

Phase 2

Phase 2 would construct two major extensions to the system. The northern extension would stretch 115 miles (185 km) from Merced to Sacramento, with intermediate stops at Modesto and Stockton. It would largely parallel the existing San Joaquins route through the Central Valley. In the south, the system would be extended 167 miles (269 km) from Los Angeles to San Diego. Instead of continuing south from Anaheim, it would split off from the Phase 1 route at Los Angeles Union Station and travel east along I-10 before turning south, following an inland route along I-15 or I-215. This would enable high-speed trains to serve the Inland Empire and inland parts of San Diego County, with stops at Ontario International Airport and Escondido. One or more additional stations may be built, in either El Monte, West Covina, Pomona, San Bernardino, Corona, March ARB, or Murrieta.

If the entire Phase 2 is completed, it would bring the total length of the high-speed rail system to 776 miles (1,249 km). Phase 2 is still early in the planning stages, and would not be constructed until after the completion of Phase 1.

Route, stations, speed, & times (DEPRECATED)

Main article: Route of California High-Speed Rail

Route travel-time and speed requirements

Is this more technical information than the article needs? The Federal Railway Administration (FRA) has a new regulatory scheme governing high speed passenger rail traffic. In TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, Interoperability of Tier III HSR Trainsets with Tier I Operations, TM 600.03, the FRA's Engineering Task Force defines a top speed of 125 mph (201 km/h) for Tier I railroads (where the track is shared with other passenger and commuter rail as well as freight and has specified grade-crossing protections), and a top speed of 220 mph (350 km/h) for Tier III (where the track is exclusive to high-speed passenger service and is fully grade-separated). The CAHSR trains will be the highest speed trains in the United States, and the system as planned is fully compliant with this scheme. Tier I extends from San Francisco to Gilroy, and from Burbank to Anaheim; Tier III extends from Gilroy to Burbank. So, the entire Interim IOS is in Tier III. agree with this being too detailed; FRA Tier III added to train specifications

Tier III operations require a very strong safety environment. Per Rachel Kesting, CAHSR Southern California Information Officer, "[I]t takes a high-speed train traveling at top speed approximately or up to 8 miles to come to a stop." At top speed, each eight seconds the train would be traveling nearly half a mile. Thus, stopping in time for a visually-observed hazard on the tracks would be impossible. deleted

Rolling stock

start of draft

Artistic rendering of a CAHSR high-speed train running in the Central Valley. As the model of trainset to be acquired is not yet known, such renderings are purely illustrative.

Comparable high-speed trainsets by the shortlisted bidders

Alstom Avelia Liberty trainset for the Acela service on the Northeast Corridor

Siemens Velaro trainset operated by Deutsche Bahn

The Authority intends to procure six initial trainsets for deployment on the Interim operating segment (IOS). For the full Phase 1, it estimates a requirement for 66 trainsets. To minimize project risks, it plans to acquire electric multiple units (EMUs) of service-proven design, for which there are no domestic rolling stock manufacturers. Train specifications are therefore similar to those being operated in Europe:

• Sustained operating speed of 220 mph (350 km/h). With 10% buffer for testing, this requires a minimum speed of 242 mph (389 km/h). The 220 mph speed is an explicit Proposition 1A requirement.
• Length no longer than about 680 feet (210 m)
• Ability to operate two coupled trainsets as a single consist ("double heading")
• Control cabs at both ends of each trainset and equal performance in either direction
• At least 450 seats and storage spaces for eight bicycles

Additionally, some requirements reflect American legislation or standards corresponding to the local environment:

• Full ADA-compliance;
• Tier III FRA safety standards
• Earthquake safety systems for safe stopping and exiting
• Floor height of 50.5 in (128 cm) above the rails to enable level boarding

Acquisition process

In a request for qualifications (RFQ), rolling stock manufacturers interested in bidding for the trainset contract were evaluated for their general capability to deliver those trainsets. The RFQ concluded in January 2024, with the American subsidiaries of Alstom and Siemens Mobility having been qualified. The Authority plans to release a request for proposals (RFP) mid-2024, with the contract signed by the end of 2024. The chosen contractor would have to deliver two prototype trainsets for dynamic testing by the end of 2028, and four further serial trainsets by 2030 for revenue service on the IOS.

Because the trainset purchase is funded by an FRA grant program authorized under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, manufacturing and sourcing for the trainsets fall under provisions of the Buy America Act. Both qualified bidders have local manufacturing capacities: Alstom in Hornell, New York and Siemens Mobility in Sacramento, California. The Authority was granted a Buy America-waiver by the FRA for the two prototype trainsets, allowing those to be assembled abroad.

end of draft, old version below

Acquisition

In May 2022 a grant request was submitted to the Biden administration for funds to purchase six HSR trainsets. The 2023 Project Update Report projects the purchase of these to be made in 2024. Paragraph superseded

In August 2023 the process for trainset purchase was revealed, with a new request for qualifications (RFQ) and a new request for proposals (RFP) in development. The RFQ was issued. Paragraph superseded

On January 5, 2024 the Authority issued a press release revealing the two train manufacturers who have been deemed qualified to receive the train RFQ: Alstom Transportation Inc., and Siemens Mobility Inc. The RFQ will be sent to these firms early in 2024. Paragraph superseded

An early delivery of a trainset for testing purposes is anticipated for 2028, with delivery of the remaining ones by 2030. While a "Buy American" regulation is in force, there is an exception for the first two trainsets, so they can be manufactured outside of the United States. So, the remaining four trainsets would need to be manufactured in the US. Paragraph superseded

The 2023 Project Update Report states that for the entire Phase 1 system 66 trainsets will be needed. Paragraph superseded

Train design

A fact sheet discussing train design is available. The Fall 2023 Construction Update Video published in November 2023 contains brief images of train interiors (near the beginning, and near the end of the video). The Build HSR website also has a six-minute video ("White Mockup Tour") doing a narrated walk-through of the different components of the train interiors. Delete, TMI. Could embed photos of rendering and mockup though

The Authority has created a 105 page draft train specification document (Sched_1PtA_Auth_TierIII_Trainsets_Spec_Rev0_013015_Industry_Working_Draft.pdf) which is not currently online. It may be requested from the Authority, however. Some of the train specifications are:

• each trainset will have a sustained continuous speed of 220 mph (350 km/h);
• a maximum testing speed of 242 mph (389 km/h);
• a lifespan of at least 30 years;
• a length no longer than about 680 feet (210 m);
• the ability to operate two trainsets as a single "consist" (a long train);
• have control cabs at both ends of each trainset and the ability to go equally well in either direction;
• pass-by noise levels (82 feet (25 m) from track) not to exceed 88 dB at 155 mph (249 km/h) and 96 dB at 220 mph (350 km/h);
• have at least 450 seats and carry eight bicycles;
• have seating for first class and business class passengers as well as space for wheelchairs;
• have food service similar to airplane-style serving;
• allow for use of cellphones, broadband wireless internet access, and onboard entertainment services;
• have a train communications network to notify passengers of travel / train / station / time information; and
• have earthquake safety systems for safe stopping and exiting.

Paragraph superseded

The following renderings of the train interior are shown on page 19 of the 2023 Project Update Report. TMI, could use updated renderings

Station platforms and new height standard

Because HSR trains use a train deck which is much higher than that used by commuter rail systems, no one station platform height will suffice. Caltrans, in cooperation with Caltrain, CAHSR, DB E.C.O. North America, and others, has developed a two-height standard to be used statewide. The lower platforms will be used by commuter trains, and the higher ones by CAHSR. Move to Stations and service later

The floors of CAHSR trains will be 50.5 in (128 cm) above the rails, more than twice the 22 in (56 cm) height of the floors in Caltrain's commuter trainsets. Only a few Bay Area stations will have platform heights to serve both types of trainsets. Caltrain is buying new Stadler KISS EMUs that have doors at both heights, allowing them to use stations built for CAHSR, but most Bay Area stations will remain usable only by Caltrain. Paragraph superseded

Stations and service

Planned intercity and commuter rail connections in Northern California.

Planned intercity and commuter rail connections in Southern California.

To be resolved: list bus connections or not?

For sure – the Shinkansen article can get away with listing trains only both because of the sheer number of transit connections and trains being the primary form of transit in Japan. Buses carry a much larger share of transit riders in California. Shannon [ Talk ] 17:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

To be resolved: Is it premature to include the info below about service patterns and schedules?

Planned service patterns are probably relevant content, but I would put it after the list of stations given that patterns refer to stations, and because these are much more preliminary than the set of stations. There is updated information on service frequency in the 2024 Business Plan, but not on travel times. These should become clear once the environmental review process is complete. (I will mark that section as unedited.) DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

For now, I replaced the paragraph about service patterns with a table based on the updated source. Shannon [ Talk ] 20:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

A 2012 report issued to the Federal Railroad Administration called for 339 daily scheduled trains on the full network (both Phase 1 and 2). Each station would be served by at least two trains per hour throughout the day, and at least three during morning and afternoon peak periods. Trains would be scheduled so that each station has a direct service to every other station on the network at least once per hour. Including all services, the main line between Northern and Southern California would handle up to 11 trains per hour during peak periods. Proposition 1A requires that the system must be designed for operating headways of five minutes or less (12 trains per hour), and that intermediate stations must be designed so nonstop trains can bypass them without slowing down. In addition, it indicates the following nonstop travel times:

• San Francisco–Los Angeles: 2 hours, 40 minutes
• San Francisco–San Jose: 30 minutes
• San Jose–Los Angeles: 2 hours, 10 minutes
• San Diego–Los Angeles: 1 hour, 20 minutes
• Inland Empire–Los Angeles: 30 minutes
• Sacramento–Los Angeles: 2 hours, 20 minutes

Proposition 1A specifies up to 24 stations to be constructed on the full network. Thirteen stations, listed below, are planned as part of Phase 1:

Phase		Station	Standort	Distance	Transfers	Responsible Authority	Status and Notes
Phase 1	Northern California	San Francisco Transbay Transit Center	Downtown San Francisco	0.0	Caltrain BART AC Transit, Muni, WestCAT, Golden Gate Transit and intercity bus services	Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA)	Part of the independent Downtown Rail Extension (DTX) project
		San Francisco 4th and King Station	San Francisco		Caltrain	Caltrain	Interim Station for CAHSR until DTX concludes
		Millbrae-SFO station	Millbrae, San Meteo County		Caltrain BART Commute.org and intercity bus services		SFO Airport connection via BART
		San Jose Diridon Station	San Jose, Santa Clara County		Amtrak (Capitol Corridor and Coast Starlight) Caltrain ACE VTA light rail BART (future extension) Intercity and VTA bus services	Caltrain
		Gilroy station	Gilroy, Santa Clara County		Caltrain Intercity, VTA and San Benito County Transit bus services	Caltrain
	Initial operating segment (IOS)	Merced Station	Merced, Merced County		Amtrak (San Joaquins) ACE (future extension)	California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA)	Upon CAHSR being operational on the Interim IOS, Merced will become the southern terminus of the San Joaquins service
		Madera Station	Madera, Madera County			San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA)	The SJJPA is the entity operating the Amtrak San Joaquins service. It is relocating the existing Madera station in anticipation of HSR, starting 2024
		Fresno station	Fresno, Fresno County		Fresno Area Express	CHSRA
		Kings–Tulare Regional Station	3-mile (4.8 km) outside Hanford, California, Kings County		/ Cross Valley Corridor (proposed)	CHSRA
		Bakersfield station	Bakersfield, Kern County		Golden Empire Transit	CHSRA
	Southern California	Palmdale station	Palmdale, Los Angeles County		Metrolink (Antelope Valley Line) Brightline West (proposed)	CHSRA	Connection to Brightline West in the Victor Valley is proposed via the High Desert Corridor project
		Burbank Airport station	Burbank, Los Angeles County		Metrolink (Ventura County Line) Burbank Airport	CHSRA
		Los Angeles Union Station	Downtown Los Angeles		Amtrak (Coast Starlight, Pacific Surfliner, Southwest Chief, Sunset Limited, Texas Eagle) Metrolink (all lines) Los Angeles Metro Rail Los Angeles Metro Bus and other local and intercity bus services	Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro)	To be converted to a through-run station under the Link US project
		Anaheim station	Anaheim, Orange County		Amtrak (Pacific Surfliner) Metrolink (Orange County Line) OC Bus	CHSRA

Table of proposed Phase 1 service patterns below. Not sure if this is the right way to present this information

●	All trains stop
｜	All trains pass
	Not on route

  Initial Operating Segment

  Silicon Valley–Central Valley Segment

Planned service patterns for Phase 1
Station	Nonstop	Express	Limited	All-stop	Merced– Anaheim	Merced– San Jose
San Francisco (Transbay)	●	●	●	●
San Francisco (4th and Townsend)	｜	｜	●	●
Millbrae	｜	●	●	●
San Jose	｜	●	●	●		●
Gilroy	｜	｜	｜	●		●
Merced					●	●
Madera	｜	｜	｜	●	●
Fresno	｜	｜	●	●	●
Kings–Tulare	｜	｜	｜	●	●
Bakersfield	｜	｜	●	●	●
Palmdale	｜	｜	｜	●	●
Burbank Airport	｜	●	●	●	●
Los Angeles	●	●	●	●	●
Anaheim				●	●

Historic Fresno station in 2014

Rendering of the planned future Fresno HSR station, the old station building is on the right

Operations and Ridership Forecast

In October 2017, the California High-Speed Rail Authority announced that DB E.C.O. North America, a subsidiary of German national rail operator Deutsche Bahn (DB), had been chosen as the early train operator. Its main service is consulting the Authority in matters leading up to passenger operations, such as ridership forecasts, service scheduling, and operations cost forecasting. Ridership estimates for 2040 based on a 2023 forecast would total about 12.2 million riders annually for the Silicon Valley to Bakersfield service, and 28.4 million riders annually for the entire Phase 1 system. CAHSR would hence carry more than twice the number of passengers annually than the 12.1 million riders reported on the Northeast Corridor Amtrak service in 2023 once Phase 1 is complete.

Connection with other major transit projects

Brightline West

Main article: Brightline West

Brightline West (formerly Desert Xpress and XpressWest) is a project that has been planning to build a high-speed rail line between Southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada since 2007. The rail line will begin in Las Vegas, cross the Mojave Desert using the median of the I-15 freeway for most of the route to a station 5 miles (8.0 km) outside of Victorville, California, a distance of 218 miles (351 km). The Victorville station would not connect to the rest of the state's rail transit network. The separate, 50-mile (80 km) High Desert Corridor is a proposed link between Victorville and Palmdale, where it would connect with CAHSR. This project is managed by the High Desert Corridor Joint Powers Agency (HDC JPA) and as of December 2023 was in a preliminary planning and project development stage, with construction currently being unfunded.

Groundbreaking of the Las Vegas to Victorville route is expected in 2024. Its connection with the CAHSR and the rest of Southern California is still to be determined. In addition to the High Desert Corridor, Brightline West has proposed an alternative route from Victorville that would terminate in Rancho Cucamonga in the Inland Empire, where it would connect with Metrolink but not with CAHSR. The Rancho Cucamonga route received federal approval in 2023, but funding and construction dates are uncertain.

needs update- what exactly is the current status of Victorville-Rancho Cucamonga?

Valley Rail

Valley Rail is a program to jointly improve rail service on the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) and the Amtrak San Joaquins for the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento, and the Bay Area. When the IOS goes into operation, the Amtrak San Joaquins segment currently overlapping with the IOS (Merced to Bakersfield) will be discontinued and replaced by CAHSR service. Passengers will be able to transfer at the future Merced Multi-Modal Transit Station, the northern terminus of the IOS. The remaining service will be expanded under the Valley Rail project, providing passengers with continuing transportation north and west to the Bay Area and north towards/to Sacramento. Valley Rail is currently in implementation, and has an estimated completion date before 2028. The ACEforward project is further proposed to electrify the ACE corridor and construct a new high-speed alignment through the Altamont Pass, allowing trains to travel at speeds of up to 150 miles per hour (240 km/h).

Cross Valley Corridor

Main article: Cross Valley Corridor

The Cross Valley Corridor (CVC) is a proposed transit line connecting Naval Air Station Lemoore and the cities Hanford, Visalia, and Porterville with the future Kings-Tulare high-speed rail station. Its route runs east–west for a total of about 80-mile (130 km), perpendicular to the high-speed rail alignment and mostly along existing rail tracks. During a first phase of up to ten years within opening of the IOS, the CVC will be implemented as a coordinated bus service by local transit agencies. In later phases, the Corridor is proposed to operate as passenger rail. The plans to activate the rail line are currently unfunded.

HSR passenger line operations (DEPRECATED)

Merge into "stations and service" section. Shannon [ Talk ] 18:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Done! DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for qualifications

In April 2017, the CHSRA announced it had received five responses to its request for qualifications for the contract to assist with the development and management of the initial phase of the high-speed line and be the Interim IOS operator.

• China HSR ETO Consortium: China Railway International, Beijing Railway Administration, China Railway Eryuan Engineering Group, China Railway Corporation
• DB International US: DB International USA, Deutsche Bahn, Alternate Concepts, HDR
• FS First Rail Group: Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane, FirstGroup, Trenitalia, Rete Ferroviaria Italiana, Centostazioni, Italferr, McKinsey & Company
• Renfe: Renfe Operadora, Globalvia Inversiones, Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias
• Stagecoach Group: Stagecoach Group, Coach USA

Mostly deleted, TMI

The above process was halted, and a new request for qualification (RFQ) was posted in early November 2023. After a review of responses, a new RFP will be sent to the selected respondents in early 2024. Deleted, contradictory and uncited

Selected early train operator

In October 2017, the California High-Speed Rail Authority announced that DB ECO North America Inc (formerly known as DB Engineering & Consulting USA Inc.) had been chosen as the early train operator. This decision came after a request for qualifications was put out by the authority looking for well established groups able to provide operational guidance for the future system once opened. Paragraph superseded

Services provided by DB International US are:

• Project management
• Ridership and passenger revenue forecasts
• Preferred revenue collection systems
• Rolling stock fleet size and interior layout
• Service planning and scheduling
• Operations and maintenance cost forecasting
• Station design & operations
• Optimization of life cycle costs
• Procurements
• Fare integration and Interoperability
• Safety and security
• Operations control/dispatching responsibilities
• Maximizing system revenues
• Marketing and branding

Shortened to three examples, inline

Ridership estimates

DB ECO North America Inc. (the early train operator) had also done an analysis of likely ridership using updated data and a newer model. Based on their estimates per the 2023 Project Update Report, ridership from the service implementation date to 2040 would total about 11.49 million riders annually for the Silicon Valley to Bakersfield service, and 31.28 million riders annually for the entire Phase 1 system. This estimate used a new California Rail Ridership Model, updated assumptions and data (from 2022), revised service plan assumptions, a revised fare policy, and a new rider behavior model. Paragraph superseded

These ridership estimates show the CAHSR system will have higher projected ridership than all California Amtrak–supported services combined: 6.6 million vs 5.6 million riders. When Phase 1 is complete, CAHSR will also carry more than two-and-a-half times more riders annually than the 12.5 million riders reported on the Northeast Corridor high speed service. Paragraph superseded

Legal aspects

Can be moved into either controversies, or history. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Lawsuits

There is very little context provided to indicate the significance of these, as compared to the myriad of other lawsuits associated with the project. Should we even keep this? Shannon [ Talk ] 04:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I would generally be in favour of keeping them, as (i) lawsuits were a source of delay (land acquisition), and (ii) it shows that key stakeholders were or remain opposed. But if so, the list should offer more context, such as: What are the implications if the lawsuits were successful or they did not settle? E.g. Burbank station: lawsuit due to disruption of operations during construction -> need new alignment? DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

In 2014, the CHSRA was challenged on its compliance with its statutory obligations under Proposition 1A (John Tos, Aaron Fukuda, and the Kings County Board of Supervisors v. California High-Speed Rail Authority). In November 2021 a circuit court ruled against the plaintiffs.

On December 15, 2014, the federal Surface Transportation Board determined that its approval of the HSR project in August "categorically preexempts" lawsuits filed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This determination was tested in a similar case, Friends of Eel River v. North Coast Railroad Authority. The Supreme Court of California determined on July 27, 2017, that CEQA is not exempted by federal law.

In February 2022, Hollywood Burbank Airport sued the authority over its approval of the draft EIR for that section of the high-speed railway. In November 2023, both parties reached a settlement that dismisses the lawsuit.

Budget and finances

I suggest a restructuring of this section with a few key points to cover. 1) A detailed but not excessive overview (perhaps presented in table format) of the previous and anticipated future funding sources of the project. 2) Discussion of the changing cost estimates of the project, both for the full build and the IOS/Interim IOS. Criticism and debate can be thoroughly covered under #Criticism, controversy and public opinion. 3) A breakdown of the most recent cost estimates of the project, again perhaps presented in table format.

For the reader, I think it would be best to present the numbers in a dry and objective (but obviously still palatable) manner, without the distractions of unfounded optimism nor excessive doom-and-gloom. I'm not sure if I have time currently to approach this section, but I may eventually get around to it if no one else does. Also, there's a huge amount of commented-out material at the bottom of this section from what appears to be a quite old version of the article. May find some useful sources in there. Shannon [ Talk ] 09:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Another important piece of information would be a decomposition of cost overruns, as it is central to the policy debate on whether to continue funding. To my knowledge, no news outlet did a serious investigation into how much of the cost increases is attributable to inflation (purely nominal increase), how much to FRA rule changes, contract extension due to third-party delays, and so on. All information with respect to change orders is publicly available, and conceptually it would just be an issue of collating such information. However, I am worried that this veers too much into original research (WP:CALC?). Also, it should ideally not befall Wikipedia editors to do this work :-) DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes for sure, I don't think it would violate WP:CALC as all the cost estimates come from a single source (the Authority). It could be useful to include an inflation-adjusted figure alongside the annual cost estimates, assuming we can figure out how to do it. Adjusted for CPI inflation, $40Bin 2008 would be $57.3B today. However the Authority uses "year-of-expenditure" figures, and as far as I can tell the current $89-128B estimate accounts for future inflation, so it's not $89-128B in 2024 dollars (it would actually be less). I'm no mathematician, so I don't really know how to adjust for that, or if it's even possible. We could make an attempt to collect/organize this information, I'm just concerned it could end up being too complicated. It's an interesting idea and could be very useful to the reader if done well. Shannon [ Talk ] 17:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

To follow up on this, all business plans until and including 2018 had cost estimates in their current year $, which allows for simple conversion into real costs. Unfortunately, starting from the 2020 business plan, the Authority started displaying numbers only in YOE-$, as you noted, which makes it impossible for us to recover the real cost for some given base year based on public information available at this time. (This is an unfortunate FRA guideline which imo does not correspond to the economically relevant decision variable.) I will email the Authority. Otherwise, one could request the information under the California Public Records Act. If they did their calculations in an orderly manner, it should be easily producible. 
 
 Rough, proposed outline over this section (feedback welcome!): 
(1) Cost estimates: for entire project over the years, in terms of real cost and YOE + explanations of cost increases, ideally have decomposition. Order first to establish context for funding. 
(2) Funding: history of funding + balance sheet-style table for current state, including funding on asset side, expenses on IOS and bookends on liabilities side. The current images are not helpful without further explanations. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

draft: cost estimate table ↓

Capital Cost Estimates over the years, in $ billions nominal prices

Segment	2008	2012	2014	2016
Price Level (temporary)	2008	2011	2015	2015
San Francisco to San Jose	4.2	5.6	6.0	3.1
San Jose to Merced	5.2	15.1	14.7	9.9
Merced to Fresno	2.0	5.3	4.1	3.8
Fresno to Bakersfield	4.2	6.8	7.3	8.3
Bakersfield to Palmdale	3.9	7.7	8.3	9.7
Palmdale to Los Angeles	5.4	13.1	13.5	13.5
Los Angeles to Anaheim	2.0	0.5	0.5	2.3
Full Phase 1	33.2	53.4	58.6	55.3

Re: cost estimate table: Just an observation, and obviously this is not how CAHSRA calculated their numbers, but I found that the YOE numbers seem to differ from the base numbers by a factor of ~1.2. Applying that to the 2024 business plan cost estimates gives a Phase 1 cost of $88.4 billion (from $106.2B YOE$), compared to an inflation-adjusted $75.3 billion from 2012 (from $53.4B 2011$). So it seems that over more than a decade, project costs haven't actually gone up as wildly as the media would have one believe. I am really curious to know what the actual converted numbers are, if the Authority responds. Shannon [ Talk ] 21:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Will let you know if they get back! DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

draft "balance sheet"-style table

Funding and Expenses, until Dec 31st 2023

Funding granted				Expenditure
Amount in $ millions	Funding Program (Year granted)	Source	Conditions or Earmark	Amount in $ millions	Item
9,950	Proposition 1A (2008)	State	$950m earmarked for statewide connectivity projects ("bookends")	211	Administrative
3,500	ARRA and FY10 (2009)	Federal	TODO	283	Support
11,686	Cap-and-trade (2014)	State	--	745	Bookends
3,300	IIJA (2023)	Federal	Advancement on IOS	1,436	Project Development
				8,546	Civil construction Central Valley Segment (the 119 miles (192 km) under active construction)
Total funding granted by Dec 31st 2023				Total expenditure by Dec 31st 2023
28,436				11,182
Expected future funding				Expected future expenditure, IOS only, in YOE$
5,250	Cap-and-trade, $750m annually	State	--	4,463	Civil Construction Central Valley Segment
				3,172	Civil Construction Merced Extension
				2,301	Civil Construction Bakersfield Extension
				2,162	Track and Systems
				875	Stations
				379	Trainsets
				438	Power Systems and Operating Infrastructure
Total expected funding				Total expected expenditure for IOS completion, Phase 1 project development, and bookends
33,686				28,470 (zero risk assumption) 35,323 (P65 risk assumption)

The Authority seeks to cover any shortfall to complete the IOS with federal grants.

draft end

Fig. 3.3 from 2022 Business Plan (p. 59)

Exhibit 3.0: Currently Available, Authorized, and Future Funding, p. 53 of draft 2024 Business Plan

On February 9, 2024 a draft 2024 Business Plan was released. (2024 Draft Business Plan) This begins a 60-day public comment period that closes at 5 p.m. on April 9, 2024.

The CAHSR's financial projections are discussed in detail in its 2022 Proposition 1A Funding Plan (September 2022) and the 2023 Project Update Report (which is discussed at the end of this section as well as the two paragraphs before this section). The legislature also had both of these documents reviewed by an independent accounting agency, and no significant problems were noted.

Per CEO Brian Kelly's presentation for the January 2024 Board meeting, the recent $3.1 billion federal grant (announced in December 2023) will fund:

• Six electric trains for testing and use
• Design and construction of trainset facilities
• Design and construction of the Fresno station
• Final design and right-of-way acquisition for the Merced and Bakersfield extensions
• Civil works, traction power, track, overhead catenary system (OCS), and systems for Bakersfield Interim Extension

As of January 2024, the Authority's plans indicated $27.0 billion in identified funding through 2030, with funds coming from Proposition 1A bonds, a number of federal grant program awards, and 25% of California's cap-and-trade auction proceeds. It is also anticipated (based on recent data) that some improvement in the Cap and Trade funding is likely, and that some further federal funding is also likely.

As of January 2024, there is a new baseline budget of $26.094 billion for Central Valley construction (about 119 miles (192 km)), design work for the Merced and Bakersfield extensions, the "bookend" projects now underway, completing the environmental clearances and design work needed for all of Phase 1, Fresno station construction, double-trackage, extension construction, and trainsets for the Interim IOS.

The 2024 Business Plan also gives an updated projection for the costs of the three different main segments of Phase 1.

San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim (Phase 1) Capital Cost Estimates (Year of Expenditure $ in Millions)

Program Wide Scope Element	Niedrig	Base	Hoch
Merced to Bakersfield	29,833	31,497	32,976
Northern California	21,180	27,865	35,514
Southern California	31,908	40,650	52,807
Program Wide	5,624	6,151	6,636
Total for Phase 1	88,545	106,163	127,933

The 2024 Business Plan will be released in final form in April 2024, with the final document presented to the legislature on May 1, 2024. This will give the latest status and projections on the project. As the February 29, 2024 Board presentation says, The "Palmdale to Burbank [segment] is scheduled for a cost update in Summer 2024," and the "LA to Anaheim [segment] is scheduled for a cost update in December 2025. Both segments are expected to have cost updates above the baseline estimate." Note, however, that this table reflects estimates of total cost, including those monies already expended, so it does not indicate additional costs.

Economic costs/benefits and environmental impacts

I have been thinking about this for a while, and reached the conclusion that we should delete this section in its entirety: (1) most of the points are just consequences of direct spending (jobs created, businesses), which is reflected by expenditure in the Budget and finances section; (2) a lot of the current section is quotes or corporate speech as is pervasive throughout the current public version; (3) such kind of economic benefit analysis is generally contentious. I also do not think we should get into these details in the first place, since other articles do not either -- for the same reason that we do not describe the EIR/EIS in detail. But please voice your opinion! DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Main article: Impacts of California High-Speed Rail

At the January 2024 Board meeting, the Authority released a summary of the projected economic benefits of the project. Note that only the bottom (green) row is currently anticipated to be realized with projected project revenue.

In addition to the direct reduction in travel times the HSR project will produce, there are other anticipated benefits, economic and environmental, both generally to the state and to the regions the train will pass through, and also to the areas immediately around the train stations. Some of the items of note include:

• In the Fall 2023 Construction Update Video the Authority announced that it had created over 11,500 construction jobs in total, and was currently employing over 1600 construction workers every day.
• The Central Valley Training Center is a pre-apprenticeship job training program operated by CAHSR to help train local workers and get them jobs on the project. It has been operating since 2020; it has trained 151 people, assisted with their job placement, and received over 1000 student inquiries.
• The Authority is also committed to helping small and disabled-staffed businesses, and as of September 2023 reports $497.5 million spent on 149 small businesses in CP 1, $393.3 million spent on 308 small businesses in CP 2–3, and $146.5 million spent on 308 small businesses in CP 4.
• The Authority produces an annual Sustainability Report on its efforts to both build the HSR system in a sustainable way, but also its estimates on the effects of the HSR system. "Our whole project is focused on a better transportation future for California," said Authority Director of Planning and Sustainability Margaret Cederoth. "We are focused not just on a sustainability outcome, but specific, measurable ways that demonstrate sustainable construction, design and delivery. We use cleaner construction practices, helping move the industry toward carbon neutrality. Our goal is to deliver meaningful benefits now for communities, even as we are building transformative transportation options."
• Where wildlife travel routes cross the tracks, provisions are being made to have under/overpasses or HSR route tunnels used.
• The Authority also produces an annual cumulative report on the economic benefits of the HSR project. The Authority has a two-page fact sheet available for 2023, and a 39-page detailed report dated March 9, 2023.

Criticism, controversy and public opinion (temporary section name)

Below, I am attempting to figure out the best way to structure this section - comments welcome. I don't have time right now for all of this, but I will be working on a few parts. Shannon [ Talk ] 08:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: I personally am in favor of the CAHSR project, but I am aware of its many flaws and more than willing to turn a critical eye towards that. However, it's a doozy trying to find actual objective criticism of this project that doesn't sound like the deranged ramblings of a conspiracy theorist. A large part of the media coverage is excessively sensational or just straight up unprofessional. Take particular care vetting sources here. Cheers, Shannon [ Talk ] 08:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 Would be best to split it into two sections (e.g. "Setbacks" or "Delays" and "Public opinion") and to avoid vague titles like "criticism" or "controversy" (and it's also more NPOV that way). The former can cover issues such as delays from environmental reviews, legal challenges, and funding disputes, while the latter can cover political battles and public views. Citing (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a better way to organize this part. I'm drawing a blank trying to come up with good concise section titles, I'll give it some thought. Shannon [ Talk ] 04:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Budget issues, setbacks and delays (temporary section name)

This would cover management-related issues such as cost overruns/inaccurate initial cost estimates; poor oversight of contractors/consultants (a lot of which have been worked out in the last few years); land acquisition delays, construction delays/schedule slippage, etc. Also there has been much questioning of the state's ridership and revenue projections. Many of said sources are even more dubious than the projections they question (and would not qualify as WP:RS by a long shot), but there are some valid criticisms to be found if we dig deep enough.

Suggest being light on actual numbers here (the hard numbers would be covered in #Budget and finances), rather, this is to cover the actual controversy surrounding the cost increases. Not sure if I have time to approach this for now, I may get around to it eventually. Shannon [ Talk ] 08:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Political debate and public opinion (temporary section name)

Probably the most important thing to include here would be discussion of repeated political attempts to kill the project (mostly from Republicans) at both federal and state levels; the continuing debate to redirect funds from the Central Valley segment to the Bay Area/SoCal; Newsom's announcement of "no path to complete CAHSR" that a lot of pundits immediately jumped on; etc.  Shannon [ Talk ] 21:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The blended operation approach has been the subject of criticism, as it would limit both train speeds and frequencies on the shared corridors. A 2015 report prepared by Eric Eidlin of the U.S Department of Transportation noted that while these were downsides of blended operation (as is the case for Germany's ICE high-speed system), there were also potential benefits, such as improved local transit connectivity from sharing existing stations, and reduced noise and environmental impacts. Some Bay Area residents have questioned the safety of allowing high-speed trains to use grade crossings, and pushed for more grade separations along the route. City governments such as Palo Alto have expressed concern that future rail operations would cause traffic congestion at grade crossings, due to the high frequency of combined high-speed rail and Caltrain service.

Much debate has centered around the Hyperloop concept first promoted by Elon Musk in 2013 as an alternative to high-speed rail. Musk proposed that the system of pods carried within vacuum-sealed tubes would be faster than rail and cheaper to construct. Although the hyperloop concept became publicly popular and numerous media outlets such as the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times initially published favorable coverage of the concept, physicists questioned the viability of the technology and the projected $6 billion cost was criticized as implausibly low. Hyperloop construction would also have encountered the same planning and land-use hurdles faced by high-speed rail. In a 2019 interview, Musk admitted that the Hyperloop was never a serious proposal; rather, he had promoted it because of his personal distaste for the high-speed rail project. Hyperloop One, the only company to have built a working prototype, shut down in 2023 after failing to find a buyer for the technology.

In April 2022, UC Berkeley's Institute of Government Studies released a survey of registered voters that found 56% supported continuing the high-speed rail project even if "its operations only extend from Bakersfield to Merced in the Central Valley by the year 2030 and to the Bay Area by the year 2033." Approval varies by political affiliation with 73% of Democrats backing the project versus 25% of Republicans.

An older statewide survey, in March 2016, by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) indicated that 52% of Californians support the project, while 63% of Californians think the project is either "very important" or "somewhat important" for California's economy and quality of life. Support varies by location (with the San Francisco Bay Area the highest at 63%, and lowest in Orange/San Diego at 47%), by race (Asians 66%, Latinos 58%, Whites 44%, and Blacks 42%), by age (declining sharply with increasing age), and by political orientation (Democrats 59%, independents 47%, and Republicans 29%). Dan Richard, then-chair of the authority, said in an interview with James Fallows that he believes approval levels will increase when people can start seeing progress, and trains start running.

Choice of route (temporary section name)

Work in progress. Shannon [ Talk ] 20:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Approximate location of alternative routes (blue) considered for California High-Speed Rail, as compared to the currently planned system (black). Brightline West is indicated in orange.

A route between the Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley via Altamont Pass – which was among the corridor options listed in Proposition 1A – has been suggested as an alternative to the Pacheco Pass route. Critics such as the California Rail Foundation and Samer Madanat, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Berkeley, have noted that Altamont would provide a more direct link from the northern San Joaquin Valley (Stockton and Modesto areas) to San Francisco, compared to Pacheco which requires a long detour to the south. As of 2020, the Sierra Club also opposed the Pacheco route in favor of Altamont, citing the greater impacts of the former on Coast Range wildlife and its potential to induce urban sprawl in the countryside surrounding Gilroy.

The Authority has intended to build the Pacheco route since 2007, and as of 2024 its plans remained unchanged. Because of its more northerly location, the Altamont route would have bypassed downtown San Jose and require either a tunnel under San Francisco Bay or the reconstruction of the Dumbarton Rail Bridge. The Altamont route would also pass through more heavily urbanized areas than the Pacheco route, potentially leading to more opposition from property owners. Planned upgrades to other existing Northern California rail lines are expected to improve service and increase speeds through Altamont Pass, as well as from Sacramento to the Bay Area.

Routing high-speed rail along Interstate 5, which would have provided a shorter trip between the Bay Area and Southern California but bypassed Fresno and Bakersfield, was also discussed in the 2000s. SNCF, the French national high-speed rail operator, proposed an I-5 alignment to the Authority and offered to build it with the help of foreign investment, although in 2009 they also expressed their interest in building the state's official proposed alignment. The Authority turned down SNCF's involvement in 2011, in part due to "Buy America" requirements that mandate transportation projects using federal funds to use domestically produced trains and materials, and due to political considerations as Proposition 1A outlined a route through Fresno and Bakersfield.

A route from the Central Valley to Southern California through Tejon Pass (the Grapevine along I-5), which would be shorter than the route through Tehachapi Pass and Palmdale, was initially disconsidered because initial studies expected Tejon would require more tunneling. However, in 2012 the Authority reopened a study of the Tejon route after it was found the Palmdale route would need more tunneling than anticipated. This was canceled after the city of Palmdale threatened to sue, citing that Proposition 1A specifies a route through there. The owners of Tejon Ranch, which has large land holdings in Tejon Pass, also opposed the Tejon route and pressured the Authority to drop the study. A downside of the Tejon route is that it would miss the opportunity to connect with Brightline West in Palmdale.

To be resolved: this source is controversial, as discussed multiple times in the CAHSR talk page. is this usage fine?

California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group (deprecated)

The Peer Review Group is an important source but IMO it should be cited as necessary rather than presented as a single chunk. I'm figuring out how exactly to incorporate this information. Shannon [ Talk ] 08:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

There could be a case for a subsection à la "Legislative oversight" or "Response to scrutiny" (with a better title) in which to put the Peer Review Group as well as the appointment of an Inspector General by the governor. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The California Legislature established the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group to provide independent analysis of the Authority's planning and implementation efforts. Their documents are submitted to the Legislature as needed.

The April 1, 2022, report noted a number of positive factors:

• Improved prospects for federal funding with the Biden Administration
• Disruptions and impacts caused by COVID-19, the war in Ukraine, and inflation are all noted but being dealt with
• Significant progress has been made on the necessary environmental clearances
• Greater attention is being given to local transit connectivity and local economic impacts
• Major improvements have been made to project management and risk mitigation

However, there were also a number of significant concerns noted:

• The total level of uncertainty has likely increased due to effects of COVID-19 and inflation.
• Prior experience with cost increases and scheduling delays raises some uncertainties about future performance. Cost increases have been over 86%, average delays have been 118%, only 90% of ordinary real estate parcel needed have been acquired, only 63% of railroad parcels have been acquired, and only 65% of utility parcels have been acquired.
• Some of the cost estimates presented were out of date, but expected to be updated in the 2023 Project Update Report.
• Major components of the project (representing over half its cost) have no bidding or contract management experience. Thus, estimates for these are clearly suspect.
• There are critical issues regarding management and legal issues with other agencies for the operation of the system which remain unresolved. (There are a number of these listed, as well as unknown long-term impacts of COVID-19 on ridership and inflation.)
• Adequate legislative oversight is lacking.
• Per the report, "[O]verall project funding remains inadequate and unstable making effective management extremely difficult. In addition, the Authority has no clear guidance from the Legislature on the next steps in the project."
• "Even with a realistic share of new Federal funding, the project cannot get outside the Central Valley without added state or local funding from sources not yet identified."

Further study (external links)

CAHSR Authority documents

All the January 2024 Board meeting materials are available online.

The Authority's latest financial projections and its current implementation strategy are discussed in detail in the 2023 Project Update Report.

The Authority's Business Plan describe the project's goals, financing, and development plans. This is updated every even year (since 2008), and must be submitted to the Legislature by May 1.

The Authority's Project Update Report gives a program-wide summary, as well as information for each project section, in order to clearly describe the project's status. This is produced every odd year (since 2015, except for 2021), and must be submitted to the Legislature by March 1.

The Authority's Newsroom provides frequent news releases concerning all aspects of the project.

The Authority's Info Center provides factsheets, regional newsletters, maps, and video simulations of route "fly-overs".

Independent reviews

The California Peer Review Group produces independent analysis of the project for the state legislature. Its documents are currently available on its website. The latest report by the PRG is the Letter to the Legislature (March 23, 2023).

The state legislature also has provided that independent financial review be conducted of the authority's plans. The firm Project Finance Advisory Limited (PFAL) was selected to do this beginning in November 2015. The September 2022 review is available at Independent Financial Advisor Report To California High-Speed Rail Authority Regarding: Proposition 1A Funding Plan.

Other documents

From 2014 to 2015, James Fallows wrote a series of 18 articles for The Atlantic about the HSR system. The series covered many aspects of the system, criticisms of it, and responses to those criticisms. See California High-Speed Rail: The Collector's Edition

The High Speed Rail Alliance is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting high speed rail systems in the United States. They have information nation-wide about current developments as well as plans and tutorials.

Videos

CNBC has a 15 minute video (from May 16, 2023) on the CAHSR project, Why California's High-Speed Rail Is Taking So Long [Youtube (Google)].

High Speed Rail Alliance links to this 73 minute video of a panel discussion by experts hosted by Streetsblog California (from summer 2023), Complete California High Speed Rail In Five Years?.

The CAHSR Authority has a video of CAHSR's 2023 significant accomplishments ("Making a List: 2023’s Top 10 Moments for California High-Speed Rail") available.

External links

• California High-Speed Rail Authority
• California High Speed Rail Peer Review Group
• California State Rail Modernization Plan (2023 Draft)
• DB ECO North America Inc.